TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istration of the petitioner for non filing of returns for a period of six months. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed returns for the defaulted period but did not file any appeal under Section 107 against Ext.P3 order of cancellation. The petitioner also did not file any application for revocation of the order of cancellation within the time prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST / SGST Acts. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Suguna Cut Piece Centre vs. Appellate Dy. Commissioner [(2022) 99 GSTR 386]. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner did not apply for revocation within the time specified in Section 30 and also did not file any appeal within the time. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P2. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31. The said form is one for suspension of revocation and not for cancellation of registration. Further, in Ext.P2 the reasons stated for proposing cancellation of registration are recorded as under: "Whereas on the basis of information w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contemplated by the form appended to the Rules. A reading of Ext.P5 suggests that the Officer issued the notice in form GST REG-31 by omitting specific details from the form and by treating it as a notice for cancellation. It is a principle at the heart of administrative law that where the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. In Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422, it was held:- "31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conclusion that the show cause notice was woefully inadequate inasmuch as it did not specify the reasons which compelled the Officer to initiate action for cancellation of registration. Even in the facts of this case, the show cause notice (Ext.P.5) reads thus:- "Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:- 1. returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Observations Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service ....